User talk:David Descamps

Welcome to the Commons, David Descamps!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image Tagging Image:Flag-Aalter.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag-Aalter.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of flag colors

Hi, David, thank you for your excellent contributions. I feel rather uneasy about the color definitions at pourpre.com (to me, the blue appears too pale, and the yellow a bit too dull, in comparison to the "average" colors on actual flags). But if the Wiki community decides to use that set of colors rather than the ones at, say, fr:Couleur (héraldique) or Image:Tinctures.svg, then I will make sure to follow the convention. You may wish to open a discussion on this subject at Commons talk:WikiProject Flags. Keep up the good work -- Phlegmatic 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, you might like to know about Commons:Pantone color chart/British flag colours if you don't know already-- its the standard color chart for the British flags based on Royal Navy specifications. ButterStick 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtray voor Kortrijk ?

Thank you for the many quality flags. Any idea where the Courtray name is coming from in Image:Flag of Courtray.svg. According to the English Wiki, it is Kortrijk. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages:_I-L#K). --Foroa 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the name usually used in English, as en:Furnes or en:Bruges. David Descamps 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Or as en:Kortrijk...

Not agreeing, if you look in the reference above and the English Wikipedia, you will only see Kortrijk. There are indeed still a couple of rare exceptions, I would say 6 to 12 cities in Belgium. But the overall tendency is to try to respect the local name and the people in stead of using a more fashionable name which was often installed by some sort of domination, colonialisation or occupation (by mainly French speaking people in this case). Of course, the world war dramas made that Furnes and Ypres live a bit longer, but I think they will finally disappear during further globalisation. If you want to talk in French to or about a John, you will not rename him to Jean, don't you think so? Even in Belgium, I see a tendency of using less and less the "translated" names.

Another disappearing example is Passchendale (Pasendaale, Paschendaele, ... in many variations) which is an old Flemisch name that evolved towards en:Passendale. The latter seem to become common, --Foroa 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is one rule with sourcing : not use wikipedia as a source. And it is clearly evident that nederlandstaligen have a problem with other languages. That's a pity. David Descamps 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. This closes this fascinating discussion. --Foroa 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of dutch-speaking people's complaints about placenames. It seems they can't bare foreign names for Dutch-speaking places or Dutch names for other places. They're even do laws on how should other people name their towns and villages. Surely in the future they will legiferate that people should come with black & yellow socks in Flanders and how tall roofs should be in their house. The French occupation of Belgium was terrible for any Belgians - French or Dutch-speaking- , and Courtray was used by French and English far before that period : La Flandre au Moyen Âge - Un pays de trilinguisme administratif If Flemish towns have or had common foreign names, it is not because of dominations, it is because of commerce. Kortrijk was important enough to Englishmen to get an English name. If Courtray is not used anymore it is because Kortrijk is not important anymore for English-speaking people. Vlaamsbelangen should think about it. David Descamps 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you got it completely wrong.

I know of French visitors that went to Liège. When leaving the Zaventem airport, they find no indicators for Liège (only Luik), so they head for Brussels. Suddenly, when on the ring and looking backwards, they are realising that they are driving away from Liège. When they u-turn, they see no Liège indicators anymore because they are in flanders again. Just plain ridiculous.

My point is that elementary manners and respect indicate that one should use the name a person or a city have. So by-names such as Doornijk, Luik, Luttich, Bergen, Courtray, Tournay, Aix-en-Chapelle, Londres, Londen, Parijs, Rijsel, The Hague, La Haie, ... should all disappear in the long run. This has nothing to do with bi- or trilinguisme, just simple plain manners. (and standardisation as a nice side effect) --Foroa 08:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your idea of how things should be. People use Furnes and Bruges in English or in French, it is not you or some vlaamsbelangen that should order people how to name cities. If indicators were in two or three languages in Zaventem, there wouldn't be the ridiculous problem you tell. Indeed, it shows how ridiculous the Vlaams Parlement is. You know, if all people talk the same language, pray the same god, eat the same food, sleep the same hours, listen the same music, elect the same government, ... I am not sure that totalitarist standardization you asked would be nice. David Descamps 09:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do a crusade on Chinese or Japanese WPs to order them to use Brugge instead of zh:布鲁日 or just ask to your flemish deputy to legiferate about it.David Descamps 09:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

@Foroa: Don't worry. It seems we can move Tournai, Mouscron, Comines, etc.. to Doornik, Moeskroen, Komen... they have a Flemish history and origin, as David Descamps just mentioned, there's not problem moving them to those names. The first are merely modern derivatives. So we'll just follow that logic, right? Or maybe we can put everything in Latin, as on old maps. That would be original ;-) --LimoWreck 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The filename does not matter to me -- but in regard to the design, I see that the images shown at the municipality site and FOTW include black outlines so that the edge of the red border is visible against the red chevron. Do you think we should add similar outlines to the Commons flag, or stick with the current image? --Phlegmatic 20:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Good, someone with a clever talk) On the FOTW, the description of the flag in the official gazette is Wit met een keper en een uitgestulpte zoom van rood. There is no outline in that description and I am pretty sure there is none on the real flag. So I think the current image is good. David Descamps 05:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status: Image:BEL Brussels flag.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BEL Brussels flag.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Language border (Belgium and France)-en.svg

File:Language border (Belgium and France)-en.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--BrightRaven (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Language border (Belgium and France)-nl.svg

File:Language border (Belgium and France)-nl.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--BrightRaven (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Papegem-Wannebeek.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Papegem-Wannebeek.gif. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 19:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Kessel-lo Arms.jpg

File:Kessel-lo Arms.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)